delete_automationPermanently delete a marketing automation by its ID. Use this action to remove an automation from SendGrid when it is no longer needed; this cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a marketing automation. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| automation_id | Yes | The automation ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives the agent a stronger basis for warning about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Permanently delete a marketing automation'), and the second sentence adds an important warning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive action with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The irreversibility warning compensates for the absence of an output schema by setting expectations about the action's consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, automation_id, as 'The automation ID to delete,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'delete' and identifies the exact resource, 'marketing automation,' making the operation unambiguous. The permanence qualifier and the irreversibility warning distinguish it from sibling tools like update_automation_settings or get_automation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when the intent is to permanently remove a marketing automation. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions, such as 'use update_automation_settings to modify instead of deleting,' so guidance is mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.